Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 4:23 PM -0700 7/27/06, Jim Fenton wrote: >> Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> At 12:17 PM -0700 7/27/06, Steve Atkins wrote: >>>> On Jul 27, 2006, at 12:08 PM, wayne wrote: >>>> >>>>> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Paul Hoffman >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> "I sign some mail" doesn't tell the recipient anything useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> What am I missing? >>>>> >>>>> It says that you should look at email without a signature as being >>>>> "acceptable", unlike a "I sign all mail" which without a >>>>> signature is >>>>> quite questionable. >>>> >>>> How does that differ from a sender that doesn't have the >>>> "I sign some mail" flag set? >>> >>> Yes, exactly. >> Might the SSP record that says "I sign some mail", which could have a >> long TTL, be more effectively cached by DNS than the (negative) caching >> when there's no record? > > Both should cache equally, shouldn't they? There are not levels of > caching. What I meant was that negative caching has a TTL which is the minimum TTL of the zone (likely to be small), while the SSP record can be given a long TTL because it's unlikely to change frequently. However, that's a pretty marginal benefit.
-Jim > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
